This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
ongoing shooting in lewiston, maine
reportedly 22+ dead, 60+ shot. shooter is rumored to be an ex army guy. perhaps shaping up to be the next las vegas massacre. stay safe and prepare for the gun control debate to be revved up full force tomorrow
On the one hand, mentally ill people shouldn't have access to firearms. On the other hand, they can do like Andreas Lubitz: hide their diagnosis and avoid treatment because they like flying/shooting too much to give it up.
Countries that have firearm registries can afford to cycle all licensed owners through psych evaluation every few years, but I don't think this is achievable in the US, which doesn't even have annual checkups for regular health issues.
Being frank, a good chunk of the US wouldn't trust this not to be weaponized against them. Given the institutional capture of psychology by the left, I can't really say I blame them.
And that’s the rub- a large majority of gun owners support licenses, registration, etc etc. The government just isn’t trusted to do it and well no one else even can.
This is why my pie in the sky fantasy has always been vesting local gun clubs, democratically operated by local gun owners as a QUANGO to perform all licensing. Require that all gun owners attend classes and meetings with the club. They will notice the weirdos, and will be incentivized to disarm them because they are in the community.
I think this would be reasonable, except that I still don't think gun rights activists would go for. Pretty much the only limitation on "shall not be infringed" that is widely recognized is that they don't think prisons have a right to carry guns while serving their sentence.
A large majority of gun owners support a compromise wherein restrictions on the kinds of guns a person can own are greatly loosened in exchange for making it harder to buy guns. This isn't on offer, and most gun owners know that "compromise" here means "we get nothing", but I'd wager that the typical gun rights activist leans towards the views of a typical gun owner.
Even me, not personally knowing any blue tribers, don't know anyone who would oppose licenses assuming the license granting authority was seen as not-hostile to gun rights and appropriate compromises on the kinds of guns you can buy with them were granted. There's legitimately more opposition to laws against concealed carry in bars or to safe storage requirements.
No, we don't. I want no restrictions on the kinds of guns and no restrictions on who can own them. Licensure of fundamental freedom is simply wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link